SRUTHY APPUKUTTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are concerning a common issue; one regarding the eligibility for fees concession.

(2.) IN W.P.(C) No.32952/2007 the petitioners have been studying for Nursing courses in various self financing institutions. Except the second petitioner, all belong to Scheduled Caste communities and the second petitioner belongs to Cheramer Christian, which is included among the list of Other Eligible Communities. Their contention is that they are entitled to enjoy all the fees concessions extended from time to time by the Government of Kerala. Their request was rejected by Exts.P3 and P4 communications. It is stated therein that the allotment should be in terms of the list prepared by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners point out that the issue regarding fees concession in self financing colleges is covered in favour of the petitioners, in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Akhil P. Pushkar v. State of Kerala (2012 (4) KLT 12). Therein, the issue considered was whether SC/ST and OEC students undergoing courses of study in the State of Kerala are entitled to educational concessions without reference to their source of admission. The legal position was examined in the light of the Constitutional scheme and the Division Bench expressed the view in favour of the petitioners therein, in para 8 of the judgment in the following terms: "The fee concession provided by the State Government to SC/ST students is a concession by way of an affirmative action in tune with Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46 of the Constitution. As held in Avinash Singh Bagri (Supra), rendered after noticing Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India {(2008) 6 SCC 1}, SCs and STs are a separate class by themselves and the creamy layer principle is not applicable to them. The benefits extended to them by way of concessions cannot be denied by making an in-house classification among SCs and STs, based on any principle; be it financial conditions or source of recruitment, etc. This is so because, the object sought to be achieved by Article 46 of the Constitution is to ensure promotion of the educational and economic interests of those weaker sections of the people by providing special care and protection from social injustice and all source of exploitation. It is not essentially a financial push. It is a wholesome preventive mechanism to insulate that section of the people from social injustice and from all forms of exploitation. Such protective cover is the constitutional mandate. It is aimed at providing all necessary support and protection to energize and nurture that section of the people from the status of being a "weaker section" to join the mainstream in totality, the blooming of which, the Nation, "we, the people of India", is yet to experience in its wholesomeness. Therefore, looking from the angle of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 46, 23 do not see any justifiable reason, on the face of the Constitution to authorise the classification of SC/ST students, for the reason that they belong to such communities, to extend the benefits declared and made available to them. We, therefore, answer the reference overruling the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27905 of 2008. rendered after Directions were issued that SC/ST and OEC students in the Self Financing Institutions in the State of Kerala shall be extended all benefits as are available to members of SCs, STs and OECs, without reference to whether they were admitted in the merit quota or management quota and also without insisting that they should have been admitted from the list prepared by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations.